









-.0 


















.e»» 
















..«-/ /\. ^^R*° ^^\ '^9) JK.''-^ 

•>^^--: \/ :m\ %/ :m\ \/ / 




• » 



cV -^m^^* "-f'juQ^' ^'i^MS'* '^^^-^ 











'«• » 




C?'^ ... ^^, 



I*' 



» • o 






% sV ^ .^^r/jy > 



*K-. <'^ 








'»• » 



■Ife: "W^ '^»\ \/ /Jfe*-- %.*^ .'M 







n^ • • ^ "^ 














The Government of the 

American Historical 

Association. 



•i 



kllZ 



A PLEA FOR A RETURN 
TO THE CONSTITUTION. 



'iransferr«d fror 



'^'•= Office. 



SEP 27 »H) 



The Government of the American Historical 

Association. 



A PLEA FOR A RETURN TO THE CONSTITUTION, 

To the Members of the American Historical Association: 

In the April, 1914, number of the American Historical Review, 
there appeared as the opening paper of that number, under the 
initials of the Managing Editor, an account of the last meeting of 
the American Historical Association, held at Charleston and 
Columbia, South Carolina. In treating the question of the gov- 
ernment of the Association, which was raised at the business 
meeting, the Managing Editor of the Review, in the final pages 
of his account, made a lengthy defense of the present management, 
complimented the Council of which he is an influential member, 
and contended vigorously that changes looking to a larger control 
by the members who attend the meetings and bear the financial 
burdens year after year, were unnecessary. The evident purpose 
of that contention was to convince the members of the Association, 
through its official organ, that the position taken at Charleston, 
and later in a series of letters in the Nation, by those who are 
contending that a democratic policy, as laid down in the organic 
law, is best for the future growth and usefulness of the Association, 
was without merit. 

The Review is the official publication of the American Histor- 
ical Association ; it is the property and should be under the control 
of the Association. When the official organ is made the medium 
for the discussion of a subject of controversy in the Association 
by one charged with its management, or by any one else, it seems 
that an opportunity should be given for the presentation of the 
other side of the question. In other words, when Dr. J. Franldin 
Jameson, the Managing Editor of the Review, undertook to pre- 
sent his views on the government of the Association, did he not 
open the way for an answer to his argument? Is not his refusal 
to publish an answer a suppression of the right of full and free 
discussion? The writer thought so when he read his paper and 
he holds the same opinion now. With that thought in mind, he 
had the following correspondence with Dr. Jameson: 



Department of Archives and History, 

Jackson, Miss., May 14, 1914. 
My dear Dr. Jameson: 

I read with much interest your account of the Charleston 
meeting of the American Historical Association in the April num- 
ber of the Review. Your discussion of the management of the 
Association is timely, and I am glad that your comment gives 
an opportunity for the entire subject to be laid before each member. 
In order to bring this about, I offer for publication in the July or 
October number of the Review, a paper containing the letters upon 
the subject which appeared in the Nation, with an introductory 
note and such other comments as are deemed necessary. 

I make this offer to you as Managing Editor of the Review 
in order to have both sides of the controversy submitted to the 
members of the Association through the official publication, and 
I make tender of the paper at the suggestion of many interested 
members from all parts of the country. 

Yours very truly, 

DUNBAR ROWLAND. 
Dr. J. F. Jameson, 
Mng. Ed. American Historical Review, 

Woodward Building, Washington, D. C. 

To that letter the following reply was made: 

The American Historical Review, 

Washington, D. C, May 18, 1914. 
My dear Dr. Rowland: 

This is in reply to your letter of May 14. If I am to tell you 
the honest truth, I do not see any reason why your letters to the 
Nation, or Fay's, or MacDonald's, or Latine's, or mine, should be 
reprinted in the American Historical Review, or anywhere else. 
Everybody seems to have seen most of them, and to have read 
all they wish to read of them. The Nation goes everywhere. 
So I think I can fill the pages of the Review in better ways. 
With best wishes, Very truly yours, 

J. F. JAMESON. 
Dr. Dunbar Rowland, 

Department of Archives and History, 
Jackson, Mississippi. 

This answer was sent to that letter: 

Department of Archives and History, 

Jackson, Miss., May 26, 1914. 
My dear Dr. Jameson: 

I have yoiir letter of May 18, declining as Managing Editor 
to publish in the American Historical Review a paper containing 
a discussion of the government of the American Historical Associa- 
tion as it appeared in the Nation with the addition of other matter 
pertinent to the subject. 



I had hoped that you would see the propriety and justice 
of having both sides of the discussion appear in the official publica- 
tion of the Association in view of the fact that you had, as Manag- 
ing Editor, given your views at length in favor of the position that 
no improvement in the government of the organization is necessary. 
There are many members of the Association who hold different 
views to yours, and it seems that they should have a chance to 
express themselves in a publication which they help to support 
and which belongs to the Association of which they are members. 

My object, therefore, in requesting the publication of what 
may be termed the liberal contention in the official organ of the 
Association, was that its advocates may have the same opportunity 
and privilege to present their ideas to the entire membership of 
the Association as those who take a conservative position. 

Since this very proper medium has been closed to us, I shall 
adopt other means of presenting the discussion. 

May I ask if you have any objection to my using yoiu- letter 
of May 18 in connection with the future discussion of the subject? 
As our discussion deals with a matter of general interest to the 
Association, I conclude that any use of your part of it will be 
agreeable to you. 

With every expression of high regard, 

Yours very sincerely, 

DUNBAR ROWLAND. 
Dr. J. F. Jameson, 

Woodward Building, 
Washington, D. C. 

Dr. Jameson replied as follows: 

1140 Woodward Building, 

Washington, D. C, May 29, 1914. 
My dear Dr. Rowland: 

In your letter of May 26, you express yourself as having 
hoped that I would see the propriety and justice of acceding to 
your request. I do not doubt that I am capable of seeing pro- 
priety and justice whenever they exist. In my judgment, it does 
not at all follow that because two or three pages were devoted, in 
my article on the Charleston meeting, to the questions you then 
raised, it is, therefore, required by propriety and justice that I 
should agree to print a whole article on the subject (to the exclu- 
sion of some good historical article) whenever any member desires 
it. In treating of the Charleston meeting, it was requisite that 
something should be said on this topic; you found fault with Fay 
for saying too little about it. But as to an article on the subject, 
if one member of the Association has the right to have one printed, 
every member has — and while indeed there are not 2,800 opinions 
on the subject, there are certainly a good many more than two. 
I should not agree to print an article on the subject by any member, 
whether his views came near mine or were opposed to them; and 



6 

especially not an article which would mainly consist of matter 
reprinted from the Nation, perfectly accessible to all members, 
and long since read by most of those who care anything about 
the matter. 

As to publication through any other medium you have my 
cordial consent to the printing of my letter of May 18, of this 
letter, and of the letter which I printed in the Nation, on one 
condition, namely, that in reprinting your letter in the Nation 
of March 19, or in otherwise quoting article V of the constitution 
of the American Historical Association, you shall quote the whole 
of that article. 

Very truly yours, 

J. F. JAMESON. 
Dr. Dunbar Rowland, 

Department of Archives and History, 
Jackson, Mississippi. 

The answer to the foregoing letter follows: 
Department of Archives and History, 

Jackson, Miss., June 2, 1914. 
My dear Dr. Jameson: 

I have pleasure in sending you a check for $200.00, the 
contribution of the Louisiana Historical Society to the Calendar 
of French Archives relative to the history of the Mississippi Valley. 
This, I very much hope, will enable us to complete the under- 
taking, as further additions to our funds are very doubtful; and 
I should regret very much to report to the Conference that the 
Calendar was still unfinished. However, I am sanguine of a 
speedy completion. 

In the matter of our correspondence relative to the publica- 
tion of a reply to your argument concerning the government of 
the American Historical Association, let me say that I shall have 
pleasure in quoting fully certain sections of the constitution, and 
may publish it in full for the benefit of all concerned. 

You doubtless noted that when I did not quote in full the 
omission was indicated. 

It is my wish to discuss the government of the Association 
fairly and good naturedly, and I feel that this spirit prevails 
among us. 

With best wishes, I am, 

Very truly yours, 

DUNBAR ROWLAND. 

Dr. J . F. Jameson, 

Woodward Building, 
Washington, D. C. 



It may be contended that the American Historical Review 
should not contain discussions of current controversial questions, 
even when they relate to the affairs of the Association. There is 
merit in that thought, but when such discussions do appear in 
advocacy of certain ideas held by the Managing Editor, then those 
opposing his views, in my humble opinion, should be given access 
to the same medium used by him. In the present case we have 
a member of the Council holding the position of Managing Editor 
which enables him to attack opinions held by other members of 
the Association, and then fall back behind the position that the 
pages of the Review could be filled in better ways, when asked 
to publish an answer. The same thought occiirs to one in connec- 
tion with his defense of the Council. 

It will be noted that Dr. Jameson, in his letter of May 18, 
takes the position that the letters in the Nation were a sufficient 
discussion of the question at issue, and that no one wanted to 
read anything more about it. The last letter in the Nation 
appeared March 19, 1914. The question was discussed by Dr. 
Jameson in the April number of the Review. Why was the dis- 
cussion continued if the members of the Association were tired of it ? 

The foregoing gives the reason, if one is necessary, for the 
publication of this pamphlet. 

In order that the record, in all of its parts, may be presented 
to all members of the Association, the letters which appeared in 
the Nation of January 22, 29; February 5, 26, and March 19, 
1914, are given in the order in which they appeared. 

These letters follow : 

In The Nation of January 22, 1914, Page 82. 
The American Historical Association. 

To the Editor of The Nation: 

Sir: In the Nation of January 8, there appeared an account 
of the Charleston meeting of the American Historical Association, 
in which a well-defined movement against certain existing methods 
was dismissed as a "discussion of the system of electing officers." 
This movement was an important featiure of the business meeting. 

I have awaited the appearance of the annual account of the 
meeting with some curiosity, as I rather expected that little would 
be said about the reasons which lie behind the well-taken objections 
to the present methods of electing the officers of the Association. 
As this is a vital question in a great and useful organization of 
students and scholars, I may venture to make some comments 
upon it. 



8 

Section 4 of the constitution of the American Historical 
Association as it appears in the last official report, is as follows: 

The officers shall be a president, two vice-presidents, 
a secretary, a secretary of the Council, a curator, a treas- 
urer, and an executive council consisting of the foregoing 
officers and six other members elected by the Association, 
with the ex-presidents of the Association. These officers 
shall be elected by ballot at each regular annual meeting of the 
Association. 

The last sentence is plain and -unmistakable. It is the organic 
law regulating the election of officers of the American Historical 
Association. It is not possible to have a legal election of officers 
in any other way than that laid down in the constitution. 

I have been an active, an interested, and an attending member 
of the Association for about twelve years. I have attended, if 
my memory is accurate, ten annual meetings, and it has never 
been my good fortune to see the provisions of the constitution 
relating to the election of officers carried out in an annual business 
meeting. May I commend this astonishing fact to the many 
learned gentlemen of the Association who specialize in constitu- 
tional interpretation? 

It may be interesting to know something about the methods 
in force in the Association for the election of officers. They are 
something like this: The council, at its annual meeting, very 
obligingly, and in order that the Association may not be distracted 
from its scholarly repose, selects a nominating committee to name 
the officers. This committee keeps its action a profound secret, 
for reasons of state, or perhaps because the council has not given 
out the list, until the business meeting. When the rank and file 
are assembled they are politely but firmly told who are to be the 
officers for the coming year. It may be called unparliamentary 
for one of the workers in the ranks from Mississippi to call such 
methods oligarchical, but the word certainly fits. 

It does not appear by what authority the council presumes 
to appoint this nominating committee. The Association itself, 
the creator of the council, certainly has no authority to appoint 
such a committee, but it seems that the council has. That it 
has assumed such authority seems to be beyond question. 

There have been many and long-continued murmtirs beneath 
the surface against such methods, and they at last found expres- 
sion at Charleston, much to the evident astonisment of some of 
the leaders, and to the manifest pleasure of the rank and file. 

The American Historical Association is suffering from a dan- 
gerous disease. It cannot be cured by Homoeopathic treatment. 
It is a case for the knife. If I know anything of the sentiment of 
the modest, earnest, scholarly men who sustain the Association, 
they will not submit fm-ther to arbitrary and unconstitutional 
methods in the administration of the affairs of one of the greatest 
associations of scholars in the world. 



9 

I have no personal criticism to make of anyone, I do not 
wish to be understood as finding fault with the officers of the 
Association, past or present. I am not an office-seeker, for I well 
know that my action at Charleston prevents me from accepting 
an official position in the Association for years to come, if not 
for all time. 

DUNBAR ROWLAND. 
Mississippi Department of Archives and History. 
Jackson, Miss., January 12. 



In The Nation of January 29, 1914, Page 107. 
The American Historical Association. 

To the Editor of The Nation: 

Sir: I am very grateful to Dr. Rowland for his communica- 
tion, published in the Nation on January 22, which states at 
length the most interesting feature of the recent business meeting 
of the American Historical Association — a feature to which I 
could allude only most briefly in my report of the meeting, owing 
to the cruel bonds of space limitation and not to any oligarchical 
attempt at suppressio veri. For I feel, in common I believe with 
every other member of the Association, including the officers, a 
keen appreciation of the courageous way in which Dr. Rowland 
stood up at Charleston to criticize the methods of the election 
of officers of the Association and to voice the opinion that the 
power of the Council "has increased, is increasing, and ought to 
be diminished." It is well that the members of the Association 
should be aroused by him to the fact that they have been too 
indifferent. 

It is quite natural that the steadily widening membership 
and the increasingly varied activities of the Association, together 
with the human experience that it is oftener easier to do a thing 
one's self than to get some one else to do it, should have inevitably 
led to an increase in the powers and activities of the Council. 
I do not conceive of the Council as a oligarchy grasping for power, 
but rather as a hard-working body having increased labors thrust 
upon it. The constitution of the Association says nothing about 
committees or their appointment. But as the work of the Associa- 
tion has grown with time, committees have had to be appointed. 
What was more natural than that they should have come to be 
appointed by the Council? So now we have reached the brink 
which Dr. Rowland had opportunely revealed. What is to be 
done? 

If Dr. Rowland, or any one else, thinks that the general will 
of the members of the Association as to the choice of officers would 
be expressed satisfactorily and without criticism by simply follow- 
ing the letter of the clause in the constitution which he italicizes 
("These officers shall be elected by ballot at each regular meeting 



10 

of the Association"), I fear his optimism is excessive. For two 
objections would be raised. Only a small proportion of the mem- 
bers are able to attend the annual meeting. Not a tithe of the 
2,843 members went to Charleston. Would not the absent ones 
say in criticism that they also ought to have some rights? They 
might. But in an organization like the Historical Association, 
in which the chief opportunity for activity is in attendance at 
the Christmas meeting, a sufficient reply to such critics would be 
that they have a right to attend the annual meeting and there 
ballot for officers, and that if they do not take enough interest 
to do this, they should not criticize. This objection, therefore, 
is not, so it seems to me, of serious consideration. However, in 
the plan outlined below, absent members would have some influ- 
ence in making nominations, even though they did not take part 
in the final ballot. There is another objection, however, which is 
vital and fundamental. As some one pointed out at Charleston — 
I think it was Professor Burr — ^it requires very little acquaintance 
with political assemblies, student organizations, and even college 
faculties to observe that a simple election by ballot is by no means 
likely to give general satisfaction. What usually happens in 
such cases is that a small group of men, more zealous or less 
scrupulous than the rest, come together beforehand, agree to 
support certain candidates, and spring upon the assembly an 
unseen slate which has enough organized support to carry the 
elections in a wholly unorganized mass of disconcerted electors. 
By a caucus of this sort a small and irresponsible minority may 
engineer elections by no means generally desired by the great 
majority. 

To avoid the possibility of this and to afford an agency for 
ascertaining the real general wishes of the members of the Associa- 
tion, the Council has been in the habit of appointing a nominating 
committee, the council and the committee, as they stated 
at Charleston, have genuinely made some effort, in going 
to and fro in the earth, to consult members whom they 
happen to meet in regard to desirable nominations for the 
December meeting. The only difficulty is that many an 
individual may find, as does Dr. Rowland, that he himself did not 
happen to be one of those whom the committee happened to 
consult. Some years ago also the Council earnestly attempted to 
procure nominations by sending out to members, along with the 
bill for annual dues, a blank ballot for suggestions. But from 
some two thousand members they received less than two score 
replies. The experiment did not seem to be worth repetition. 

In view of this situation I venture to repeat a suggestion 
which I heard favorably discussed on our homeward way from 
Charleston : 

As it is essential that some canvass of opinions be made 
before the final balloting at the annual meeting, I suggest that the 
nominating committee, after learning as much as it can of the 



11 

sentiments of the members by conversation, shall draw up a list 
of several nominations for each office to be filled, leaving space 
for, and expressing the hope of receiving, additional nominations. 
Let this list be sent to each member some weeks before the annual 
meeting in order that he may mark his preferences among the 
suggested names or add nominations of his own. These marked 
nomination lists, returned to the committee, shotild be the basis for 
the final ballot to be voted upon at the annual meeting. This 
may be a little clumsy and involves some work, but it is similar 
to systems found fairly satisfactory by some colleges and univer- 
sities for electing overseers, trustees, and alumni officers. It 
would not be likely to meet such apathy as did the efforts of the 
Council a few years ago, mentioned above; because a modest 
man who would hesitate to urge candidates whom no one has 
mentioned, is likely to be ready and eager to express a preference 
among names brought to his notice ; and the provision for additional 
nominations would always give adequate opportunity to those 
who thought the nominating committee had not done its duty in 
bringing forward fairly representative names. 

SIDNEY B. FAY. 
Dartmouth College, January 24. 



In The Nation of February 5, 1914, Page 132. 
The American Historical Association. 

To the Editor of the Nation: 

Sir: I have no love for controversy, but as I was chainnan 
of the nominating committee of the American Historical Associa- 
tion in 1913, and am responsible to that extent for the nominations 
which were presented at the Charleston meeting last December, 
I owe it to my colleagues of the committee as well as to the Associa- 
tion, to make some reply to the criticisms of Mr. Dunbar Rowland 
in your issue of the 22d instant. I only regret that, in my 
unavoidable absence from the Charleston meeting, the unexpected 
duty of defending the action of the committee had to fall upon 
Prof. Clarence W. Alvord, who acted as chairman in my absence; 
but while I do not know what Professor Alvord said on that 
occasion, I have no reason to think that it was anjrthing with 
which I should not heartily have agreed. 

If Mr. Rowland's statement that the nominating committee 
"keeps its action a profound secret .... until the business 
meeting" is only a rhetorical way of showing the intensity of his 
feelings, I have no quarrel with it; but it implies that the com- 
mittee, either with or without the concurrence of the Council, 
sedulously hides its "slate" until the last moment in order that 
no iconoclastic champion of liberty may have a chance to break 
it, I can only say that such implication corresponds to nothing 
in the action of the committee of which I have any knowledge. 



12 

What the procedure of former committees may have been I do 
not know, but the procedure of the committee of 1913 I feel free 
to state. The committee comprised, besides myself, Professor 
Alvord, of the University of Illinois; Professor Bassett, of Smith; 
Professor Riley, of the University of Mississippi, and Dr. Krehbiel, 
of Leland Stanford. All the suggestions regarding nominations 
that were received by me were laid before each member of the 
committee; and such suggestions as were received by other mem- 
bers, and sent to me, were similarly transmitted. As a matter of 
fact, we received very few suggestions from any source. If there 
is, among the members of the Association, any widespread revolt 
against "arbitrary and unconstitutional methods," the nomin- 
ating committee were not made aware of it. Even Mr. Rowland 
himself does not appear in the list of the committee's correspon- 
dents, although he had due notice of the appointment and per- 
sonnel of the committee, and might at any time for the sum of 
two cents, have laid before the committee both criticisms and 
suggestions. We did not suppose at the time, and I do not think 
now, that the committee were expected to circularize the member- 
ship of the Association in the search for candidates, or devise 
some sort of primary through which candidates might be nursed. 
Under these circumstances, the committee did what all such 
committees do; it went over the list of apparently available 
candidates, considered carefully the few suggestions made to it, 
and made up the best list of nominations that it could. The 
committee considered geographical or sectional arguments, as 
well as the scholarly standing of the man and his record of active 
interest in the Association. The several members of the committee 
widely distributed geographically, were all more or less intimately 
acquainted with members of the Association in their immediate 
locality or section; and we were further aided by a memorandum 
prepared by the committee of 1912, setting forth so far as that 
committee understood it, the prevailing opinions in the Association 
at that time regarding desirable nominations. I am not so vain 
as to imagine that the nominations finally agreed upon were 
ideal, or that several lists equally good might not conceivably 
have been made up; but I know that our decisions were made 
with a view to what we believed to be the best interest of the 
Association. To say, as Mr. Rowland does, that "when the rank 
and file are assembled they are politely but firmly told who are 
to be the officers for the coming year" is nonsense so far as the 
committee of 1913 are concerned. 

Mr. Rowland characterizes the methods of nomination as 
"oligarchical." I have been for twenty years a member of the 
Association, serving for eight or nine years of that time as a 
member of the Public Archives Commission, and for three years 
as a member of the Council. I know of no oligarchy in the Asso- 
ciation. I know only a group of men, all of them distinguished 
scholars, who have been willing to spend time and money in 



13 

building up the Association, and in organizing and advancing 
historical interest and historical scholarship throughout the 
United States. 

On one point I hope that I may be allowed to reassure Mr. 
Rowland. At the close of his interesting letter he expresses the 
conviction that his action at Charleston will prevent him "from 
accepting an official position in the Association for years to come, 
if not for all time." This I feel sure is not the case. The Associa- 
tion fights its battles in the open, cherishes no grudges, and marks 
no man for banishment. If Mr. Rowland continues to render, as 
director of the Department of Archives and History in the State 
of Mississippi, the same distinguished services that he has ren- 
dered in the past, he may rest assured that the Association will 
be only too glad to honor him, and that he will be as free as ever 
to accept any office which the Association can bestow — provided, 
of course, that he is nominated and elected. 

WILLIAM MacDONALD. 
Brown University, January 31. 



In The Nation of February 5, 1914, Page 133. 

To the Editor of The Nation: 

Sir: Dr. Dunbar Rowland is, I know, incapable of inten- 
tional misrepresentation; yet I think that his letter respecting 
the American Historical Association, printed in your issue of 
January 22, is likely in two particulars to mislead your readers 
(in so far as they take any interest in the affairs of the American 
Historical Association) ; on the one hand, as to the methods which 
the Association now follows in respect to its elections to office, 
and on the other hand as to the amount of discontent with those 
methods that was evinced at Charleston. 

The practice of the Association is not noticeably different 
from that of many other large bodies which hold annual meetings 
attended by but a small part of their membership. The committee 
on nominations was appointed a year ago by the Council, from 
among the members of the Association who were not members of 
the Council. Members were urged to write to these five gentle- 
men, respecting their preferences. It appears that the committee, 
in addition to the letters that they received, took considerable 
pains by conversation and some letter-writing to elicit the senti- 
ments of others. The nominating committee then made up a 
slate against which no member, so far as I know, not even Dr. 
Rowland himself, had expressed the slightest objection. The 
reader would certainly infer from Dr. Rowland's communication 
that the list was dictated to this committee by the Council. On 
the contrary, no member of the Council had any knowledge of 
what the nominations would be. The nominating committee 
made its report in the usual manner of nominating committees. 
Any one who had other nominations to make could have made 



14 

them. The only trace of illegality that I could discern in the 
proceedings was that by vote of the Association (to which there 
was no dissenting voice) the acting secretary was instructed to 
cast a ballot for the list brought in by the committee. I think 
that such a vote is objectionable, and I have heard that it is 
illegal; but such societies usually follow such a practice, because 
if no other nominations have been made it saves time. At all 
events, I see nothing oligarchical about it. Perhaps it could be 
improved upon, but I am surprised to learn that neither the Asso- 
ciation nor the Council has authority to appoint a nominating 
committee. Are all our seventeen committees, through which 
the Association does so great a variety of interesting work, illegal? 

Secondly, one would not learn accurately from Dr. Rowland's 
communication just what happened at Charleston. He rose and 
made a vehement speech of protest, and believes that he had the 
warm approval of those whom he calls the rank and file. I can 
only say that, of all who spoke after him (and all were free to 
speak) none expressed dissatisfaction with the existing method of 
nominating officers, nor approved his suggestion that ballots 
should be sent out in the autumn to the 2,800-odd members — for 
this method had been tried three times and proved a failure. 
Neither does he record that, at the end of the discussion, it was 
voted that the new nominating committee should take the whole 
procedure of nominations into consideration, and report at the 
next meeting. 

My own conviction is that, whatever theoretical qualms may 
have been felt by some, most members of the American Historical 
Association, as is the case in most similar bodies, perceive that the 
affairs of the Society will under any system be chiefly administered 
by those who are most interested. I think they regard the Coun- 
cil as distinctly accessible to new membership and to new ideas 
and on the whole approve nearly all that it has done. I think 
they should do so, for my observation has been that it is an 
imselfish and right-minded body, making its best endeavors to 
care for the interests of the whole membership. 

J. FRANKLIN JAMESON. 
Carnegie Institution of Washington, 

January 26. 

In The Nation of February 26, 1914, Page 207. 

The American Historical Association. 

To the Editor of The Nation: 

Sir: I have read with interest the letter of Dr. Dunbar 
Rowland in your issue of January 22, in regard to the management 
of the American Historical Association, and the replies of Messrs. 
MacDonald and Jameson, appearing in the issue of February 5. 
Neither of these replies appears to me to face squarel}^ the real 
charge, which is, to put it bluntly, that the American Historical 



15 

Association is run by a small clique or ring which controls the 
elections and divides the honors among the members and adher- 
ents of the group. This charge has been made with increasing 
frequency diuing the last few years. It has been made usually 
in a jesting way, nobody caring to appear to treat the matter too 
seriously, both at the meetings of the Association and wherever 
groups of historians have been casually thrown together. Further- 
more, there appears to be very little difference of opinion as to who 
constitute the ring. 

I did not support Mr. Rowland's movement at Charleston 
because I did not approve of the remedy he suggested, but I do 
believe that the facts which I am about to submit afford ground 
for a radical change of policy on the part of the Association. As I 
have served on the nominating committees of both the American 
Historical Association and the American Political Science Associa- 
tion, I hope I may be allowed to contrast the policies of the two 
organizations in the matter of elections to office. The tenure 
of such offices as secretary, treasurer, and the managing editors 
of the reviews published by the two associations should in the 
nature of things be more or less permanent, and in the following 
discussion we shall leave these offices out of consideration. The 
constitution of the American Historical Association provides 
for the annual election by ballot of seven officers and six members 
of the Council; and the Council composed of the officers and 
councillors so elected, together with the ex-presidents of the Asso- 
sication, chooses the board of six editors of the American Historical 
Review. Now, leaving out of account the two secretaries, the 
treasurer, the curator, and the managing editor of the Review, 
we have fourteen positions of honor, with little work attached, to 
be filled each year. Of the fourteen men at present holding these 
positions thirteen were in the office-holding group last year, and 
only one was taken from outside. At the recent meeting of the 
American Political Science Association I was chairman of the 
committee on nominations. Omitting, as was done in the case 
of the American Historical Association, the secretary and treas- 
urer and the managing editor of the American Politdcal Science 
Review, there are in the Political Science Association seventeen 
positions to be filled each year. Of the seventeen men recently 
chosen only six held office the preceding year, and eleven were 
taken from the general membership of the Association. 

Why this difference in associations whose constitution and 
general piuposes are similar? It is the fixed policy of the Political 
Science Association to encourage the younger men who have 
demonstrated their ability to do good work by sharing the honors 
of the Association with them, and enlisting their aid and counsel. 
What, on the other hand, appears to be the policy of the American 
Historical Association? Is it a purely selfish one of reserving the 
honors for a select group of older men, or is it to guard zealously 
the interests of the Association against the radical views of the 



16 

rising generation of historians, or yet, is it possible that the present 
group of office-holders believe that they enjoy a monopoly of the 
brains and talents of the Association? As long as the ex-presidents 
are members of the Council for life, not even the presence of two 
such doughty progressives as Col. Roosevelt and Professor Hart 
can rescue that body from hopeless conservatism. Surely, then, 
a little new blood should afford no ground for alarm. 

JOHN H. LATINE. 

Johns Hopkins University, February 20. 



In The Nation of March 19, 1914, Page 297. 
The American Historical Association. 

To the Editor of The Nation: 

Sir: Since the publication of my letter concerning the man- 
agement of the American Historical Association, which appeared 
January 22, three replies, or explanations, have been given to the 
public through the medium of the Nation. These letters were 
written by men of the highest standing in the Association : Profes- 
sor Fay, of Dartmouth; Professor MacDonald, of Brown, and 
Professor Jameson, of the Carnegie Institution. These gentlemen 
are not only learned scholars, but they are also good judges of the 
strength of an assumed position. If my statement that the 
American Historical Association, under the leadership of its 
council, had been conducting and administering its affairs in an 
illegal and unconstitutional manner, could have been refuted, 
it would, of course, have been done. As a discreet silence has been 
maintained on the only point at issue it is fair to conclude that it 
is conceded that the "power of the council has increased, is increas- 
ing, and should be diminished." Professor Fay agrees with me 
entirely on that proposition. 

While it could hardly be expected that Professor Jameson 
and Professor MacDonald would concede so much, it is reasonable 
to suppose that they are not prepared to justify the shutting out 
of the hundreds of men who attend the annual meetings of the 
Association frcm having any part in its government, other than 
that of ratifying what had been done by the Council. At any 
rate, they say nothing about the real point at issue. 

Professor Jameson flies from the real issue and tries to conceal 
his flight by bringing non-essentials into the discussion. The 
question of the popularity or unpopularity of my position at 
Charleston does not affect in the slightest degree the justice of 
my contention. I stated there that if any men on earth were 
capable of self-government the members of the American Historical 
Association were capable; that we had allowed the Council to 
assume too much power, and that it was our duty to become seLf- 
goveming. If the personal endorsement of at least one hundred 
men, including those who have held high positions in the Associa- 



17 

tion, was an indication that I was not standing alone, such an 
endorsement was certainly voluntarily extended after the business 
meeting. My learned and distinguished friend, I fear, does not 
read accurately the signs of the times, or he would not take the 
position that the methods of the Council are popular. If he 
thinks that the wiping out of constitutional guarantees is popular 
with the members of the Association he is blind. 

Professor MacDonald makes a labored effort to defend the 
nominating committee. I have no quarrel with the committee. 
Some of my best friends served upon it. I conclude that they 
did what they were appointed to do. Such a committee has no 
legal existence, as the Council has no authority whatever to 
appoint it. How the committee performed its duties has no 
proper place in this discussion. There was no criticism of its 
members at Charleston, therefore Professor MacDonald's defence 
is unnecessary. 

To put the whole matter concretely, my contention is that 
the duties of the Council are carefully laid down in section 5 of 
the constitution, as follows: ". . . . the election of members, 
the calling of meetings, the selection of papers to be read, and the 
determination of what papers shall be published." It has no 
right to appoint a nominating committee which does nothing 
more than conduct a caucus by mail, the effect of which is to 
preclude a free and fair expression from the men who sustain 
the Association. The constitution contains the democratic idea. 
Is it not our duty to see that it is not set aside ? 

May I again emphasize the fact that my action in this entire 
matter is impersonal? I have repeatedly stated that it is the 
system, not men, that I am condemning. We have drifted, 
consciously or unconsciously, it matters not which, into the rule 
of the few in the American Historical Association. I do not claim 
to represent the entire membership in my contention for self- 
government. I do know that I have unmistakable evidence that 
there will be a revolution if the question is not handled justly 
and wisely by those in authority. 

DUNBAR ROWLAND. 

Mississippi Department of Archives and History. 
Jackson, Miss., March 15. 



That the affairs of the American Historical Association have 
been conducted in an unconstitutional way by the controlling 
majority of the Council has never been denied, yet, strange to say, 
there is a contention that such methods have brought about good 
results and should be continued. Such an argument would con- 
done the worst oriental despotism. 



18 



There are many ways in which this unconstitutional control 
of the Association has been brought about. These are some 
of them : 

L 

By securing the selection of the officers of the Association 
by means of a nominating committee appointed by the Council. 

IL 

By withholding the nominations of the nominating committee 
from members of the Association until the business meeting. 

III. 

By having the officers elected at the armtial meeting without 
a ballott in violation of the plain mandate of the Constitution. 

IV. 
By the election of the Editors of the Review by the Council, 
an exercise of unauthorized power. (It may be well to note here 
that for many years the presidents of the Association have been 
taken from the editors of the Review.) 

V. 
By the selection of the places of meeting of the Association. 
The Council is empowered to call meetings, nothing more. 

VI. 
By the appointment of the chairmen of committees and con- 
tinuing them in office for years. 

VII. 
By the appointment of all committees. 

VIII. 
By the creation and appointment of committees not author- 
ized by the Association. 

IX. 
By placing its own members on the most conspicuous and 
important committees. 

X. 
By making the annual meeting of the Council in New York 
City an expensive social function. 

XL 

By centralizing the executive duties of the Association in 
the Department of Historical Research of the Carnegie Institution 
of Washington. 



19 

XIL 

By establishing an tinwise and undemocratic succession in 
the offices of president and vice-president. 

XIIL 

By failing to have every act of the Council reported to and 
confirmed by the Association. 



It is unnecessary to comment on the above specifications. 
It is only necessary to give the Constitution of the American 
Historical Association to shov/ that not one of them is authorized 
by the organic law. This is proof of that statement. 

CONSTITUTION. 

(From the Annual Report of the American Historical 
Association for 1912.) 

I. 
The name of this society shall be The American Historical 
Association. 

II. 
Its object shall be the promotion of historical studies. 

III. 

Any person approved by the executive council may become 
a member by paying $3.00, and after the first year may continue 
a member by paying an annual fee of $3.00. On payment of 
$50.00, any person may become a life member, exempt from the 
payment of fees. Persons not resident in the United States may 
be elected as honorary or corresponding members and be exempt 
from the payment of fees. 

IV. 

The officers shall be a president, two vice-presidents, a secre- 
tary, a secretary of the council, a curator, a treasurer, and an 
executive council consisting of the foregoing officers and six other 
members elected by the Association, with the ex-presidents of the 
Association. These officers shall be elected by ballot at each 
regular meeting of the Association. 



The executive council shall have charge of the general interests 
of the Association, including the election of members, the calling of 
meetings, the selection of papers to be read, and the determination 
of what papers shall be published * 



♦Italics by D. R. 



20 



VI. 



This constitution may be amended at any annual meeting, 
notice of such amendment having been given at the previous 
annual meeting, or the proposed amendment having received 
the approval of the executive council. 



This statement is respectfvdly submitted to the members 
of the American Historical Association with the single purpose 
of subserving the true interests of one of the greatest agencies 
for patriotic and unselfish effort in our country. 

If the feeling becomes general, — and it is rapidly becoming 
so, — that a great body of scholars is dominated and controlled 
by a small group of men its usefulness is at an end. 

We are much given to pointing with pride to the democracy 
of letters; as a matter of fact historians and scholars of all kinds 
are not different from other men; if they are allowed too great 
latitude in the management of associations such as ours they 
become too ambitious, unmindful of others, and forget the 
restraints which should be and always are thrown around the 
exercise of authority. 

DUNBAR ROWLAND, 

Mississippi Department of Archives and History, 
Jackson, Mississippi. December 1, 1914. 








..v^:*< 



















^^ 



''•>^.v.>. 










'^oV^ 




e N o 







.^ *: 


















V^^^'<^ %-'f.T.*.c,*' V*^^^V '<.'?.^ 






> >y^ ^^^ 







•jJt^iNty^'^^ o 
















♦ (A ^-■^ * 








*K 



o\ 










^- v^ **^W/h:- "^xf^. c^ * 



.^.'^^vr, 










9 










• 









• U <^ **^ 








o 










♦ AT ^^ o 








